Posted August 21, 200717 yr On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:05:49 +0100, "Simon Finnigan" <SimonFinnigan@Hotmail.Com> wrote: >"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >news:3e0jc3tk6u73mbkacao6a28qa61558ut7b@4ax.com... >> Conor wrote: >> >>>In article <wbqdnZAgH4r7-FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com>, notbob >>>says... >>> >>>> I see no one has mentioned the biggest reason why Windows sucks. I >>>> just experienced the 3rd drive-by download/infection in three years on >>>> my little used Windows box. It wiped my main scsi drive. This >>>> occured via Firefox with both java and java scripts disabled. I've >>>> never experience this with Linux. It was a dual boot system I use for >>>> little used Windows applications and linux hacking. Now, the whole >>>> box is compromised and must be wiped clean. >>>> >>>That says more about your incompetency than anything. >> >> Idiot. What percentage of the population, currently connected to the >> Internet, would you say are "competent" in regards to computers? >> >> Starting to see the problem with Windows' insecurity, cretin? >> >>>If it were that >>>bad, it'd be happening to everybody. >> >> It's happened majority of home Windows machines connected to the >> Internet, cretin. > >What a well reasoned, credible arguement. I`m so glad you chose not to back >up your statements with any mere facts or statistics, because you obviously >don`t need them :-) While I have no idea if it has happened to the "majority" of home windows machines, statistically speaking, I can tell you that windows vulerabilities have cause infestation on the majority of other people's systems that I have seen. However, we're talking about Windows vs Linux, and failing to distinguish the actual vulnerability in these "drive-by" infections which is not windows itself per se but rather the integrated browser which a windows user is not forced to use. Nevertheless, even ignoring that at any given moment there are always holes exploitable on windows, and a few inevitably there for Linux as well, there is one remaining factor relating to security: While nothing is 100% secure, the prudent security level depends on the risk. The risk of being infected on a windows system is much higher because windows is targeted. We could argue that it's targeted because a hacker wants to do as much damage or take control of as many bots as possible or a similar argument that it only makes sense to focus on the masses since the majority of home PCs run windows, but regardless of the reason it is _really_ less secure as a result, and Windows PCs will remain less secure even if the inbuilt security measures become overwhelmingly better than on any other OS.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.